Re: Antipassive
| From: | Matt Pearson <pearson@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, June 27, 2001, 21:20 |
|---|
Nik Taylor wrote:
> J Matthew Pearson wrote:
> > This is sort of beside the point, but it seems odd to me that "nlakus" is
> > deleted from the first conjunct instead of the second one. Is there any
> > particular reason why it's "Faguatiatas ku sufkapatas nlakus pikaatuli" and
> > not "Faguatiatas nlakus ku sufkapatas pikaatuli"? Just curious.
>
> Hmm ... hadn't really thought of that. Faguatiátas ku sufkapátas nlakús
> pikaatúli would also be grammatical. Actually, probably preferable.
No, no, the version in your reply is the same as the version you gave in your
original message! What I was asking is: Wouldn't it be better to put "nlakus"
after "faguatiatas" rather than after "sufkapatas"? In other words, which of the
following is better, (1) or (2), and why?
(1) Faguatiatas ku sufkapatas *nlakus* pikaatuli
(2) Faguatiatas *nlakus* ku sufkapatas pikaatuli
On the basis of natlangs I know, I would expect (2) to be better--but then
Uatakassi is not a human language, IIRC...
Matt.
Reply